Data Background

The Pacific Northwest Salmonoid Habitat Projects (PNSHP) data set brings together data on habitat restoration actions related directly or indirectly to salmonoid habitat in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Actions are categorized in to one of 82 action types and grouped by a geo-coded work site. Work sites are further grouped by project. Project-level information is available on the source (who reported the project, often a funder or another database) and expenditures. For many projects, information on the extent of the action taken (e.g. length of stream or road treated, area treated) is also available, though how this information is structured varies widely by action-type, source, and project complexity.

In this document, we include projects between 1991 and 2015 (25 years). During this period, the number of ESA-listed salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) grew from zero to 19 (including steelhead). The first listing was Snake River sockeye, listed as endangered in 1991. The most recent listing was the Oregon coast coho, listed as threatened in 2008. This period also covers major changes in available financing for the habitat projects. A major population boom in the region, especially in the Puget Sound basin, increased the tax base for state-funded projects (while simultaneously increasing pressure on salmon habitat via development and water demands). The financial crisis of 2008 also lead to funding cuts across government agencies. Because projects are added to the database in batches and in a rolling fashion, I include only projects up to 2015.

Project Structure Typology

Due to differences in how projects are funded, organized, and reported across sources, project data are structured in different ways. Some projects are quite complex, spanning dozens work sites miles apart with different actions at each. Some are simple, consisting of a single action at a single worksite. Many are in-between, consisting of a handful of work site with the same action or a single work site with many actions.

To make matters more complex, project costs (i.e. expenditures) are always reported at the project level (rather than the action or worksite level), while it appears that metrics (i.e. extent of action) are sometimes reported at the project level, sometimes at the worksite level, and sometimes at the individual action level. This makes directly comparing average costs (i.e. expenditures per unit) between projects difficult.

Below, I present a typology of projects based on their structure. I distinguish between the number of worksites, the number of actions, and the consistency of action profiles (i.e. what actions are taken) across sites. I also include the number of projects that fall into each category. I have also begun work classifying the metric structures within these categories, but idiosyncrasies and edge cases have made creating a consistent, managable typology over metric structure difficult. This typology could also include project cost availabilty, which is about 66% for all projects.

The majority of projects fall into either the single work site, single action type category. Among multiple work site projects, the majority fall into the single action type category, which will greatly simplify subsequent analysis (at least when metrics are consistently reported within the project). For multiple action type projects, directly modeling average costs will be difficult, as distinguishing between spending on different action types is impossible. One approach may be to model individual actions and use multiple action type projects as a check, using single action type model results to project expected costs for multiple action type projects and compare projected and observed total project costs between the two.

All projects (n = 29,919)
  • Single work site (n = 24,135)
    • Single action type (n = 18,080)
    • Multiple action types (n = 6,055)
  • Multiple work sites (n = 5,784)
    • Single action type (n = 3,101)
    • Multiple action types (n = 2,683)
      • Single action type at each site (n = 168)
      • Multiple action types at some or all sites (n = 2,515)
        • Same action types at all sites (n = 1,912)
        • Different action types at some or all sites (n = 603)

Source Glossery

Thirty-eight different organizations, referred to as sources, contribute data to PNSHP. Below you will find a glossery of each source code.

ASOTIN - Asotin County Conservation Distrcit (Asotin County is the southeastern-most county in Washington and contains important Snake River watersheds)
BLM - Bureau of Land Managmeent
BOR - Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior agency responsible for water storage and irrigation, including federal dams)
BPA - Bonneville Power Administration
CBFWA - Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (Now defunct group of state, federal, and tribal agencies organized to advise BPA on habitat improvement efforts)
CHEHALIS - Chehalis Tribe (Southewestern Washington)
COLVILLE - Colville Tribe (Northeastern Washington)
COQUILLE - Coquille Tribe (Southwestern Oregon)
COWLITZ - Cowlitz Tribe (Northeastern Washington)
CRITFC - Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission
DUCKS UNLIMITED - Ducks Unlimited
FISHER FISHERIES - Fisher Fisheries Consultancy
GRAND RONDE - Grand Ronde Tribe (Central Western Oregon)
GRMWP - Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program (Northeastern Oregon river)
HABITAT WORK SCHEDULE - Washington State program for tracking projects by the 27 “Lead Entities”, local boards responsible for managing state salmon habitat spending
ID OSC - Idaho Office of Species Conservation
IDAHODEQ - Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IDFG - Idaho Department of Fish and Game
IDFG SCREEN SHOP - Fish screen efforts for IDFG
KRITFWC - Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission (Southern Oregon river)
MONTANA WATER CENTER - Research instiute based at Montana State
NMFS - NOAA Fisheries
NOAA RESTORATION - NOAA Restoration Center
NRRSS - National River Restoration Science Synthesis project (a project of American Rivers)
NWIFC - Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
OR WATER TRUST - Oregon Water Trust
OWRI - Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory
PCSRF - Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (federal grant program adminstered by NOAA)
REO - United States Forest Service Region 6 Regional Ecosystem Office
SHOSHONE-BANNOCK - Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Southeastern Idaho)
SRFBD - Salmon Funding Recovery Board Database (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office grant program)
STREAMNET - Data project of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
WA DOE - Washington State Department of Ecology
WA RCO - Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
WA WATER TRUST - Washington Water Trust
WDFW FISHWAY - Washinton State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fishway Program
WDFW WRIP - WDFW Watershed Recovery Inventory Project
WDOT - Washington Department of Transportation

Action and Project Counts

In this section, I visualize the number of actions in the PNSHP data set by (a) action type, (b) year, (c) basin, and (d) source (and cross-tabulations). Counts of projects are also presented by (a) year, (b) basin, and (c) source (and cross-tabulations). These figures illustrate trends in project and action quantity over time and differences in actions taken across space, while also highlighting potential differences in reporting across different sources and regions.

Observations

  1. Road drainage system improvements are by far the most common actions. Most of these actions occurred between 1995 and 2005 in Western Oregon (Willamette, Southern Oregon Coastal, and Northern Oregon Coastal basins), and are reported through the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Road obliterations follow a similar pattern. These actions are the fifth mos common, are also concentrated in Western Oregon during the same period, and are mostly reported through OWRI. While these types of road improvement projects improve salmon habitat by improving water quality, they are likely not directly targeting salmon habitat. There also appears to be inconsistent reporting between Oregon and Washington for these sorts of projects.
  2. More direct habitat improvements like plantings, stream-flow alterations (e.g. large woody debris, boulders, log jams, etc.), and weeding are widely and consistently documented. These sorts of actions are likely directly comparable in terms of costs.
  3. Culvert-related projects (upgrades and removals) are quite common and consistently reported over time and space. The reporting of culvert projects does not follow the pattern of Oregon roadwork projects and is more widespread over several basins and reporting sources.
  4. Livestock (including riparian fencing) and upland actions are common, but mainly reported by Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These actions are likely more targeted towards general watershed improvements rather than salmon habitat in particular.
  5. Both the number of projects and the number of actions peak in the early ’00s. The number of actions and projects collapses during the recession, likely due to a lack of funding. The number of projects per year does not recover to pre-recession levels, while the number of actions does see a bump in the early ’10s, indicating an increase in the number of actions reported per project.
  6. Are differences in the types of actions reported because of differences in actions taken across space (e.g. Oregon vs. Washington) or are they due to differences in reporting (e.g. OWRI vs. Habitat Work Schedule)? How might this affect our ability to model costs across the full region?
  7. Will the lack of roadwork actions reported outside of Oregon affect the external validity of models for these action types? Any roadwork action model will be dominated by OWRI projects, while Washington does not have an analogue reporting system for these sorts of projects.

Count Figures

To view high-resolution figure, right click and select “Open image in new tab”.

Counts of Actions

Counts of Projects

Expenditures

In this section, I visualize reported expenditures over (a) action type, (b) year, (c) basin, and (d) source (and selected cross-tabulations). Note that a single project will fall into multiple action type categories if the project consists of multiple action types. All expenditures are converted to 2019 dollars via FRED Implicit Price Deflator. Three projects were removed as outliers in their spending levels (see note below).

Expenditures are available for 19,841 projects, or 66.3% of 29,919 projects. In total, the PNSHP data set reports $2,494,738,235 in expenditures across all 25 years.

Observations

  1. When I first ran these, there was a crazy peak in spending in the Willamette basin in 1991. Further investigation reveals that this is due to two projects reported in the Willamette by NRRSS in 1991. Both projects are involve “Water Quality Improvement - Return Flow Cooling”, and one involves fish screen installation. The more expensive of the two cost over $110 million while the other cost just shy of $64 million. These two return flow cooling projects are two of only 21 projects reported that involve this action type. A third 1997 NRRSS-reported toxic water clean-up project in the Pend Orielle basin has a reported cost of around $54 million. The next most expensive project has a reported cost of only $14 million. Given their outlier status, these NRRSS projects will be removed from future analysis.
  2. Only 22 of the 38 sources report any costs at all. The top six sources account for the vast majority of reported spending. An obvious next step will be to calculate cost reporting rates by source.
  3. Projects involving direct habitat interventions like riparian planting and in-stream placement of large woody debris, log jams, weirs, rootwads, and boulders make up the bulk of the spending. For multiple action projects, these sorts of actions tend to be reported together, which might explain their clustering at the top the total expenditure figures. These projects appear throughout the region, but Puget Sound has seen the most investment by a wide margin. Overall, these projects are the most widespread and represent the bulk of spending.
  4. Over $250mill has been spent on culvert improvement projects, making it the action with the third highest associated expenditures. However, per project costs for these projects is ranked much lower. This spending is spread concentrated along the western side of the Cascades (Puget Sound, Oregon Coastal, Willamette).
  5. The bulk of the land acquisition spending is in the Puget Sound. Habitat Work Schedule and WA RCO (including SRFBD projects) report the most spending on these projects, and both operate mainly in the Puget Sound region. On the other hand, OWRI does not report land acquisition projects, so we may be getting an incomplete picture of acquisition activity in Oregon.
  6. Expenditures have been rising overall and for almost all major actions over time, with the exception of road drainage improvements (see note in the Action and Project Counts section above). Expenditures per project and per action have been rising over time as well. As seen in the Counts figures, there is a noticeable drop in spending in the year of the financial crisis, though overall spending quickly recovers.

Expenditure Figures

To view high-resolution figure, right click and select “Open image in new tab”.

Total

Per Project

Note: These figures represent expenditures per project with reported costs.

Per Action

Note: These figures represent expenditures per action for projects with reported costs. Results by action still in progress and are omitted here.

Next Steps

  1. Work on reconciling inconsistent metric structures. I’m still working on identifying different cases (especially for multiple action work sites/ projects) and coming up with reasonable ways to migrate this information to project-level data. Once this step is complete, getting descriptive information on costs per unit of action will be possible.
  2. Work on calculating distance data and figuring out uses. For example, a bunch of projects seem to involve very closely clustered work sites with the same action and a shared metric value. These multiple work site projects are probably best treated as a single work site for our purposes. I’ve started work on writing scripts to identify such sites and possibly merge them into a single project.
  3. Scope reduction? Would it be reasonable to focus on just a single basin and source? For example, Habitat Work Schedule’s consistent work in the Puget Sound is quite attractive. Focusing in on a smaller region and a single source would alleviate some data inconsistency issues.